Post navigation

Rainbow Bishop Getting the “What ‘fer”

I cannot endorse the reaction of this congregation during Mass. But I think it is indicative of the kind of tension that exists today between a conservative laity and a liberal episcopal class. What you are about to see is a reaction to an episcopal abuse, and it might represent a growing tendency among the faithful to cry out “ENOUGH”! After all, we’re not robots. We’re human beings who are sick and tired of being taken for granted and abused by the liberal power brokers who govern the Church today.

These are the seeds of schism. Bishops take heed!

In Normandy, a modernist Catholic bishop’s attempts to remove an orthodox parish priest have provoked an extraordinary outburst of fury from parishioners. Mgr Christian Nourrichard, Bishop of the Leftist diocese of Evreux, has booted out Fr Francis Michel from the church of Saint-Taurin, Thiberville, where he has had an outstandingly successful ministry for 23 years. The bishop favours instead one of those team ministries where, as in England and America, the role of the priest is largely replaced by that of self-obsessed lay “ministers”. On the feast of the Epiphany, January 3, the bishop arrived to celebrate Mass in Thiberville dressed in one of those disgusting rainbow chasubles favoured by Magic Circle clerics everywhere. As he haughtily explained his plans, some of Fr Michel’s supporters completely lost their rag. The fiasco was filmed, and now, thanks to YouTube, it is being watched around the world by traditionalist Catholics with a mixture of dismay and approval. For one of the black marks against the priest, you see, was to celebrate Mass from time to time in the Extraordinary Form. And in trendy Evreux, following the wishes of the Holy Father is tantamount to heresy.

17 thoughts on “Rainbow Bishop Getting the “What ‘fer””

When the writers of the Humanist Manifesto took over our universities, law schools, and public schools under the guise of separation of church and state. The church had nothing to do with the state, but the Western Civilization’s Worldview was based on Christianity not Darwinism, but Darwinism was also taught as a theory.
The Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933. The father of Western education John Dewey was one of the first signatories. He wrote a book to bring in the religion of Darwinian Humanism and no other into our schools and universities entitled, A COMMON FAITH ,1934 Yale University Press and it was about the Religion of Darwinian Humanism. Here is how the book ended,” Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant.” The father of the sexual revolution Alfred Kinsey shocked the world with the publication of, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, in 1948. Dr.Alfred Kinsey’s overall thesis titled “Outlet Sex” placed all sexual acts on the same moral, social, and biological level whether in or out of marriage, between people of the same or opposite sex,or when sex involved even children or amimals. By declaring that “Darwinian science” had found “no value” in traditional sexual morality, the Kinsey Reports, provided the so-called “Darwinian Scientific Foundation” for university and now public school sex education classes and the sexual revolution. The minds of our Darwinian humanist professors were already corrupt, and with their textbooks had already started socially engineering their students. They were not interested in separating the church from the state, because the church was already separated from the state. They started the process of separating Western Civilization from Christianity through the universities and schools, and to institutionalized atheism through Darwinian Humanism as the only religion to be taught in schools by court and government decree. The consequences of this on our justice system, education, entertainment, music, art, media and society are dire. We have become a pagan nation with all the power in the hands of the Darwinian Humanist Institutionalized Atheist Supreme Court. We have a few good Justices, but they are out-numbered by atheists. That is exactly what the authors of the Humanist Manifesto wanted, and now have it.
This institutionalized atheism has most of our citizens in a drug induced type of mind-set where they live according to Darwin’s theory or any way they want. These Darwinian Humanist beliefs have permeated our culture, and they have a profound effect on the behavior of our society. Opening closed brainwashed minds is not easy , but it can be done. My friends asked me to research the consequences of the Humanist Manifesto on Western Society. I am glad they did. I don’t know how we can take back the schools from the Darwinian Humanists, but if we are to save our children and society form this “evil” social engineering we must. Getting involved in politics to change bad laws and put in good ones is one answer. This has brainwashed many so-called clergy. How long will our citizens stand for this?

“tension that exists today between a conservative laity and a liberal episcopal class”

I couldn’t make out all that was happening in the clip, but that booing transcends particular languages. Given the way you framed this dispute (conservative laity and a liberal episcopal class…), I am curious whether you agree with me in asserting that we don’t want either of those things (a conservative laity and a liberal episcopacy…), right?

We are in a culture war,and our children and society are being brainwashed. Come on board and help us win this war.

We must never forget that the Darwinian humanist, material-energy, chance world view position is an exclusivist, closed system which shuts out all contending viewpoints. Especially if these views teach anything other than relative values and standards. Anything which presents absolute truth, values, or standards is seen to be a total denial of the Darwinian Humanist position.

They have exchanged the christian worldview for this position in government, law, education and all of life. The Darwinian Humanist view will not tolerate any gods besides itself, and they use every form of force at their disposal to keep this world view the exclusive one taught in our education establishments to everyone by government decree.

These two worldviews stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural, sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.

We have to change this by electing our own people to Parliament where laws are made, and to pass Bills in Parliament and our legislatures to stop these dictator governments, judges, and so-called Human Rights Tribunals from making laws at their own whim, and imposing their worldview on our kids in public schools and society by government decree.

Truth does not become more truth by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.
said Moses Maimonides in, Guide for The Perplexed.

“We want both laity and clergy to be faithful to the Magisterium. By today’s standards, that would qualify as a conservative laity and a conservative clergy. No inventions or improvisations at Mass.”

Steve, I know you wouldn’t have wrote this if you didn’t actually believe it, but don’t you realize the consequences of such sloppy thinking?

Yes, we want the laity and the clergy to be faithful to the Magisterium. But to assert that “by today’s standards that would quality as a conservative laity and a conservative clergy” is just absurd.

I don’t want a “conservative” laity or clergy (don’t you understand why), and I don’t want a “liberal” clergy or laity. You shouldn’t either. You should want what I want, which is members of the Church being faithful to the Gospel of Christ, as it is presented through the teachings of the Church.

Correct. We do not want conservative vs. liberal. But these days, Kelly, “conservatism” or what passes for it is overwhelmingly aligned and near identical to what the Church teaches.

But beyond that, the dividing line is becoming not so much what she teaches, but how the pastoral application of what she teaches is applied.

Case in point, Kennedy Funeral. Here in Canada, Development & Peace, and even the controversy above is a pastoral (liturgical) matter.

In each of these cases, we see the “social justice” crowd on the wrong side of the issue time and time again.

By the way, what do you think the bishop was trying to communicate by wearing a rainbow chasuble in a more Traditional parish? Warning about the dangers of sodomy and what happened during the Flood perhaps? 🙂

If that is not a sign of provocation (wearing a wonking and politically charged liturgical vestment), I really don’t know what is.

I don’t know what the Bishop was trying to communicate with his chasuble. I suspect I do, but I have to be cautious, since I couldn’t even 100% follow the dialogue that was occurring. I’m not suggesting your interpretation is wrong, and certainly something came to my mind, but I don’t know the context or situation enough to comment. But whatever evaluation we make, I don’t think it is connected to my comments regarding conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatism is very large and very diverse and to simply associate it with faithfulness is absurd. In the Canadian context, legal protection for the unborn, “conservative” in a sense, on a political spectrum certainly isn’t a concern for the governing Conservative Party, but it is for the Church. In this case, should we say legal protection for the unborn is “conservative” in a sense, conservatism is meaningful insofar as it corresponds to the Church.

When it came to the status of same-sex unions, someone widely recognized as conservative (Andrew Coyne) was quite favorable, but the Church wasn’t. If we say that marriage defined heterosexually is typically conservative, conservatism is only meaningful insofar as it coheres to what the Church teaches.

We might say that such movements or individuals aren’t really “conservative” but then were just playing linguistically, and not really engaging with what we need to engage with. There are typically conservative positions that do parallel those of the Church, but there are also typically liberal ones.

That is why we call individuals to something higher. Conservatism, however one understands it, is only worthy of affirmation insofar as it is corresponds to that which I believe is higher. Does that make sense?

The age of sex consent is no longer 14 in Canada because of what a Social Conservative blogger or two and a Catholic professor organized. Our Bishops are still sleeping John. Perhaps we can stop our Bishops who affirm unhealthy lifestyles to Catholics too.

Our children, youth and Western Society are threatened by liberal Goverment’s, meaning “all” of the liberal-minded governments, “imposition” of only the Darwinian Humanist Worldview and Religion in our “Public Schools and Universities.” Not that long ago Western society was Christian of sorts. Now through our education establishments it has become only Darwinian Humanist Atheist by government decree. One need only study The Humanist Manifesto’s and see how the fathers of Western Education did this.

If someone is headed off a cliff, the compassionate response is to try to stop him, not allow him to fall and then offer to treat his injuries.

According to The Health Canada’s HIV and AIDS surveillance report for April 2006 on page 60, we read that eighty- five percent of AIDS in Canada is in MALES WHO HAVE SEX WITH MALES. Then there is Gay Bowel syndrom, a collection of diseases of the bowel tract that lead to the mechanical dysfunction of the lower bowel tract that include amebiasis, giardasis, salmonellosis, hepatitis A and B,tuberculosis, sypilis,etc. These are ENDemic in the homosexual population. Why is sodomy legal in Canada and the United Nations trying to force the world to legalize sodomy? The homosexual lifestyle is not healthy, ok, and normal as the liberal-minded teach our children in Public Schools and Universities by government decree!

Legalizing the homosexual lifestyle by promoting it, and teaching falsely that it is healthy and normal by government decree to our children in Public School Class-Rooms and Universities ought to be a criminal offence.

The homosexual scientists Dean Hammer and Simon Le Vay pretend they have discovered a homosexual gene but the work can never be replicated by anyone else to be proven. In other words its BS meaning Bad Science. The media puts this BS all over the covers of newspapers and magazines and the public believes this BS as scientific truth and the teachers teach this to our kids.

It is the hight of compassion for people to unite to oppose this societal disaster with its litany of pain and suffering before everone is brainwashed by this BS meaning Bad Science of coarse.

We have already seen that the liberal-minded Governments, Judges, Teachers Federations, Universities Kinsey Sexology and popular media’s positive healthy portrayal of homosexuality has enticed many children and young people not forgetting brainwashed adults by BS that is Bad Science into this harmful behavior.

With Government sanction, promotion and imposition of the homosexual lifestyle, Kinsey secology and the Darwinian Humanist atheist worldview and religion, and no other allowed to be taught in Public Schools from kindergaten , many more will be drawn into this destuctive lifestyle. Many people are “educated” to believe what is legal is moral!

When a Bishop goes against Church teaching to affirm unhealthy behavior he ought to be turfed.

>>Conservatism is very large and very diverse and to simply associate it with faithfulness is absurd.

No, it’s not. I am not using “Conservative” in the Secular political sense. I am using it within the context of morality. In other words, “social conservatism”. In that respect, to the extent that it seeks to PRESERVE our moral traditions, it is most certainly associated with faithfulness.

While it is true that no secular mass social ideology can identically mirror what the Catholic faith proposes, in terms of the hot buttom issues of our day, social conservatism comes very close. The distinction is there, but it is not one of relevance to 99% of the issues we typically discuss.

KellyWilson in 2008 the age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 in Canada. In 2005 when the Conservatives first brought in this Bill it was defeated. 94 Conservatives were elected 90 voted to raise the age 4 did not vote.

Of the rest of thr parties in Canada put together only 9 members voted to raise the age so it was defeated. In 2008 because of this and other Social Conservative Sites showing how the MP’s voted on this issue most members of the liberal minded parties did not show up to vote so it passed by only 3 votes and the age of consent is now 16, but we did want it higher. As John Pacheco worked very hard on this he can fill you in on the rest.

In its December 20,2005 decision The Supreme Court of Canada legalized a type of business activity previously restricted by Canadian Law,overturning two previous Court of Appeal decisions that had ruled group-sex clubs qualified as bawdy houses violating community decency standards and were therefore illegal.

Now under Canadian Law consenting 14 year olds are considered consenting adults. The courts controversial decision has made Canada a sex traffic playground for pedophiles, ther ilk or anyone who wanted to pervert Canadian children by court and government decree.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin was joined by Justices Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron in the sex-club decision.
Dissenting Justices Michael Bastarache and Louis LeBel said the high court’s ruling,” strips of all relevance the social values that the Canadian community as a whole believes should be protected,” according to the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Bill C313 to raise the age of sex consent was defeated 167 to 99 on September 28,2005. 90 FEDERAL Conservatives voted to raise the age of sex consent,and of the rest of the POLITICAL PARTIES IN CANADA PUT TOGETHER ONLY 9 MEMBERS VOTED TO RAISE THE AGE OF SEX CONSENT. How our MPs voted was on the website http://www.parl.gc.ca

Social Conservatives have to unite and the liberal-minded change their minds and join us as some already have by looking at the consequences of their choices on Canadian society.

Kelly Wilson, In 2008 the Social Conservatives United to shame the LIBERAL minded politicians not to show up to vote because we posted their names and how they voted on our websites, Catholic Professor Tom Landers organized a large number of people because the liberal-minded politicians were passing Bills so pedophiles, their ilk and others were having their way with Canadian Children by court and government decree. Our Bishops were sleeping and so were the liberal minded. The age of sex consent is now 16 in Canada even though we wanted it higher. John Pacheco can fill you in on this in greater detail as he worked hard on this issue and still is doing good work on moral issues

John, my point is that these secular mass social ideologies are meaningful only insofar as their particlar propositions correspond to those the Church embraces. Because we attach meaning to such ideologies only insofar as their particulars correspond to those of the Church, that suggests to me that there is something better than those social ideologies.

You say social conservativism comes very close to faithfulness. You recognize a distinction, but say that it is not one of relevence to 99% of the issues you typically discuss.

That may be. It’s your blog. Discuss what you want. But you framed this particular discussion in terms of the tension that exists between a conservative laity and a liberal episcopacy, and I maintain that as Catholics, we want to call people to something better than that.

You clarified that you were using this term “conservative” in the context of morality, in terms of preserving moral traditions, in which case you believe “conservative” can be associated with faithfulness. However, the situation you first inserted the “conservative laity/liberal episcopacy” distinction, seems not primarily to do with morality…

As for the paralllels between Catholicism and social conservatism, I guess I would be more interested to hear you lay out how you view social conservatism.

>>you framed this particular discussion in terms of the tension that exists between a conservative laity and a liberal episcopacy, and I maintain that as Catholics, we want to call people to something better than that.

+ But that’s what it is. In this case, we have a laity clinging to some semblance of Catholicism while we have a bishop disregarding it (according to the reports) in favour of a largely secular ideology. You can slap any construction on it you want: “liberal vs. conservative”, “modern vs. traditional” “non-Catholic vs. Catholic”, etc.

PREFACE

In 1886 there appeared in Spain a little work under the title El Liberalismo es Pecado: “Liberalism Is A Sin,” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of Barcelona and editor of a journal called La Revista Popular. The book excited considerable commotion. It was vigorously assailed by the Liberals. A Spanish Bishop, of a Liberal turn, instigated an answer to Dr. Sarda’s work by another Spanish priest. Both books were sent to Rome praying the Sacred Congregation of the Index to put Dr. Sarda’s work under the ban. The following letter, under date January 10, 1887, from the Sacred Congregation itself, explains the result of its consideration of the two volumes:

Most Excellent Sir:

The Sacred Congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title “El Liberalismo es Pecado” by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation (pg. iii) was accompanied at the same time by another little work entitled “El Proceso del Integrismo,” that is “a refutation of the errors contained in the little work El Liberalismo es Pecado.” The author of the second work is D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

Wherefore the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and decided as follows: In the first not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda, than against the latter’s supposed errors.

Therefore the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pazos, admonished by his own Bishop, to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from circulation, and in future, if any discussion of the subject should arise, to abstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the precept of true Christian charity; and this all the more (iv) since Our Holy Father Leo XIII., while he urgently recommends castigation of error, neither desires nor approves expressions personally injurious, especially when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their piety.

In communicating to you this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, that you may be able to make it known to the illustrious priest of your diocese, D. Sarda, for his peace of mind, I pray God to grant you all happiness and prosperity and subscribe myself with great respect,
Your most obedient servant,
Fr. Jerome Scheri, O.P.
Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index.